Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mattythewhite

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Mattythewhite

Final: 2/10/1; Ended: 17:52, August 9, 2007; Withdrawn by Candidate

Mattythewhite (talk · contribs) - I am proud to nominate Mattythewhite for adminship. Matty is one of the best editors in our community; who has been editing since July 2006. He has a total of 43960 edits, which is magnificent. Whilst also he has took the time to source and verify many, many articles. Whilst he has also helped make featured articles on Wikipedia, etc York City F.C. and has also helped promoted several articles to GA status, Clayton Donaldson, Hull City A.F.C. and Emile Heskey. He participates in various sister projects, and he has a good understanding of policies. He has never been in conflict and is by far one of the best editors one wikipedia. The sunder king 15:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I'd like to accept. Mattythewhite 15:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: One thing in particular that concerns me on Wikipedia is vandalism. The blocking tool to me is personally not much of a priority, but I would use this if necessary. I like to gain a compromise on what should be done on a particular article. I often leave warning templates to a editor who has just made a vandalous edit. With the blocking ability, I'm sure I'd use it sensibly and in cases of blatant sock puppets, persistent vandals etc. Also, I would help in deleting and undeleting articles. As in my main field, football, there is a clear notability guide on athletes, and could help see which articles fit the guideline. Mattythewhite 16:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: The majority of my edits to Wikipedia are football (soccer) related. I feel passionately about the sport and have a great desire to unleash this on Wikipedia. Probably my proudest moment on Wikipedia was getting York City F.C. to featured status. Not an easy task getting that little bronze star, which I wouldn't have got without help from a few certain editors. Also, as The sunder king mentioned, I am also proud of the GA's I have contributed to. Mattythewhite 15:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I have had several conflicts with editors in the past. One example, including the content of Colours section of York City F.C., which has ended in the compromisation of including several details. This ended up with some heated discussion, but eventually this version was agreed. Mattythewhite 15:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Hiberniantears

A Would you please comment on the circumstances surrounding your recent block[1]? Hiberniantears 16:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had uploaded a number of images with incorrect copyright information, so I was eventually blocked for 24 hours. Since, I have learned more on copyrighting and have uploaded a number of legal free images on my account on Wikimedia Commons. Mattythewhite 16:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears from the discussion on your talk page [2], that there was a lack of honesty on your part in dealing with the situation. Your overall history here is quite remarkable, and shows a high level of technical competence, as well as sound contributions of content. However, your answers here seem rather brief, and explaining the block seems to be the obvious answer for #3. Can you go into more depth on how you feel the block (and everything it entailed) is, or is not significant in evaluating your ability to function as a sysop? Hiberniantears 16:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I regret what I did, and I know it was wrong. But I have learned from my mistakes, and quite simply, do not see how it could not interfere in work as an admin. Mattythewhite 16:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

See Mattythewhite's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Links for Mattythewhite: Mattythewhite (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Mattythewhite before commenting.

Discussion

Support

As nominator, and per the featured articles, and the huge amount of mainspace edits. The sunder king 16:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Seems to know what he is doing. I'll support him. Just dont abuse the vandalism privilige. Xenocide321 16:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose. You were blocked barely 3 weeks ago due to an apparent lack of understanding of Wikipedia's copyright rules. See discussion. Too soon after I'm afraid. —Moondyne 16:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose user has no understanding of WP:NFCC it seems. T Rex | talk 16:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops Recent block, but no mention of it in A3? Surely that was a conflict? Majorly (talk) 16:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Block less then a month ago is not good. ~ Wikihermit 16:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose. You are a nice guy who has done a lot of good work on football articles for Wikipedia. However, I am concerned about the copyright issue and block, but I am equally concerned that you have been laser focused on the football articles. It doesn't look like you've been exposed to much of the rest of Wikipedia and run into some of the other issues that administrators deal with. I recommend withdrawing the acceptance at this time and spending some time exploring the other sides of Wikipedia. Gain some experience in these other areas and keep up the good work you have been doing, and I will be happy to support you next time.--Kubigula (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. Despite this user's positive contributions, I have serious misgivings about this nomination because I do not trust him. A few weeks ago, I became aware that he had uploaded several images of football players taken from other websites and incorrectly tagged them as his own. I entered into a dialogue with him in good faith to straighten out which photos were his and which belonged to others, so I could limit my deletion to others' images. He claimed that the images taken with two particular camera models were his own. Strangely, he claimed that he was not sure whether he had taken some of them. I even undeleted many images I had already deleted based on his specific assurance that he was the photographer. After some checking, it became clear that most, if not all, of the images he claimed as his own (including many he specifically asked me to undelete) were also taken from other websites. There were well over a hundred images involved, some of which were uploaded after our dialogue began. I blocked him for a day to stop him from uploading more images so I could clean up the mess, which took quite a while. My concern here is not that he mistagged a large quantity of images. Our image tagging policy is complex so that could happen to anybody. My concern is that when he was asked about these images, he provided inaccurate information about their source in an attempt to prevent their deletion. As a result, I cannot trust him, and I don't know how he will be able to enforce Wikipedia's policies with this in his history. If you want the full details of our dialogue, you can see his comments at this section of my talk page archive and my responses on this snapshot of his user talk page. -- But|seriously|folks 16:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the block itself I can overlook, but I dislike the fact that you failed to disclose it. Also, as an admin you need to keep track of things and be by-the-book, and I've already seen you get distracted and forget minute but essential procedural details. Answers to the questions are too succint for such a prolific editor, you should let us know more about what makes you tick! Adminship is no big deal; so: keep up the outstanding editor work; study, learn, live and breathe wikipedia policies; pay attention to detail and procedures; and always be more honest and candid than you think you should be. Best of lucks either way! Roadmr (t|c) 16:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Copyright misunderstandings are one thing, deliberately calling images your own that are not is completely another. Someone who has made questionable judgments so recently has no business with the bit at this time. Shell ^babelfish 16:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I cannot support such a recently, justiafably blocked editor, even with 43k edits and the admission of wrongdoing. I suggest withdrawl, to reapply in a few months (in which you can definitively show that you have no further problems with picture licensing). — Scientizzle 17:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You were recently blocked and you were blocked for deliberately trying to circumvent the rules. Further you did not present this as part of your nomination. I think we need a good deal of time and a good deal of proper work and dialog before we go any further. --JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 17:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral You are a great editor, but that does not necessarily mean that you will be a good administrator. I like your articles but I would like to hear more about how exactly you would use the admin tools. DanThaMan17 16:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.